While both of the groups did similar, I think that sincerely position 2 had won the debate for several distinct reasons. I believe the position 2 had won the debate because I believe that the people in position 2's cast were not necessarily more prepared but had better and wider variety of arguments including opinionated and well thought out facts on the outlook of life. Possibly due from the variety of characters that position 2 had possession of, position 2 had a view on the issue from several perspectives and several opinions. During cross fires, position 2's cross examination was often powerful as well as sincere. Position one also made some several strong points of information but I believe that position 2 was able to answer most of them with an exception of a few. Honestly, both of the groups had very similar strengths and weaknesses and I wouldn't be able to tell much difference from a third person point of view. However, by slightly stronger POIs and stronger and more better prepared answers by the witnesses, I think they were able to bring it through and win the debate. I strongly disagree with position one's arguments as they were largely based on the status of the dragon. One superior being cannot be trusted nor liable to win the debate. Most of their arguments were due to one simple fact and cannot and should not have been used throughout the entire debate. Thus, I believe that position two was more reliable and had stronger points, thus won the debate
Loading...